This latter piece was excellent, I thought. Apparently the guy is a historian of Libya as well.

For me... I hate Gaddafi, want to see his insanity stopped, want to see the citizenry protected, and yet... I can't quite see my way through (and certainly haven't heard the story told) of how we don't end up with Gaddafi holding Tripoli, instigating large-scale not-media-covered slaughters inside that region (with 63% of the Libyan population), with real threats to wreak havoc across the Mediterranean. 

*** UNLESS we know that sufficient numbers of powerful insiders remain around Gaddafi are willing and able to undercut him, or unless we know his troops will bolt when it push comes to shove around Tripoli, or unless we can hit him with a drone. *** 

A divided Libya, on its own, just becomes an incredible nightmare. Oil production will be shutdown by one side or other... we will see massive internal cleansings (this is a society with secret committees and a lot of reasons for grudges, and for gains)... and since Gaddafi has billions in gold, and stashed in banks, mercenaries easily accessible, plus apparently strong support within some tribes and military quarters. And the rebels are gonna beat that head-on? 

Again, all I can say is that unless we have inside dope that Gaddafi can be taken out by drone, or there are those close to him willing to undercut or remove him, or we know his military can be divided... then we're in the shit now. And infinitely moreso, the people of Libya.

And yes, it's this that makes me incredibly angry at the high moral horses than the "pro-intervention" people are on. Oh sure, there are "risks" they say and the "end game" is unclear (for of war, I guess), but then they just go on with their sermons and lectures about morality and ethics and practicality, beating their chests about the poor people about to be massacred, and "don't we care?"

Seriously. They're lecturing the critics of intervention about PRACTICALITY. Dear God.